Steelers trade Holmes to Jets for fifth-round draft pick

this is a discussion within the NFL Community Forum; Originally Posted by saintfan
It's not MY interpretation it is the interpretation of the SUPREME COURT, which I'll be happy to quote for you - or you can just Google it for yourself if you'd like to understand completely the ...

It's not MY interpretation it is the interpretation of the SUPREME COURT, which I'll be happy to quote for you - or you can just Google it for yourself if you'd like to understand completely the point I'm making.

I looked this up Saintsfan:

"Although the Constitution of the United States does not cite it explicitly, presumption of innocence is widely held to follow from the 5th, 6th, and 14th amendments. See also Coffin v. United States and In re Winship.
"

So your raging on about semantics neglects to mention the word you keep using isn't even in the constitution.

"Although the Constitution of the United States does not cite it explicitly, presumption of innocence is widely held to follow from the 5th, 6th, and 14th amendments. See also Coffin v. United States and In re Winship.
"

So your raging on about semantics neglects to mention the word you keep using isn't even in the constitution.

LMAO. If you're going to cite from Wikipedia, be sure and read the whole thing (and with Wikipedia, make sure you check the citations cause sometimes Wikipedia is woefully inaccurate):

The presumption of innocence is in fact a legal instrument created by the law to favor the accused based on the legal inference that most people are not criminals.[4] It is literally considered favorable evidence for the accused that automatically attaches at trial.[5] It requires that the

, be it a juror or judge, begin with the presumption that the state is unable to support its assertion.[4] To ensure this legal protection is maintained a set of three related rules govern the procedure of criminal trials. The presumption means:[1]

With respect to the critical facts of the case - whether the crime charged was committed and whether the defendant was the person who committed the crime - the state has the entire burden of proof.

With respect to the critical facts of the case, the defendant does not have any burden of proof whatsoever. The defendant does not have to testify, call witnesses or present any other evidence, and if the defendant elects not to testify or present evidence, this decision cannot be used against them.

The jury or judge is not to draw any negative inferences from the fact the defendant has been charged with a crime and is present in court and represented by an attorney. They must decide the case solely on evidence presented during the trial.

You know what? There are lots of things we have in place, BY LAW, that were not part of the original constitution or even the various amendments.

So yeah brother, I'm 'raging on', but not about 'semantics' as you state, but rather about the attitude of people like you that are eager to make assumptions and convict and label minus any evidence - or at least minus ENOUGH evidence.

I think that where you and falconhater are concerned, one of two things (or both) are relatively clear: You either don't know what you're talking about and you are unwilling to get learned OR you are comfortable enough in your self-righteousness that you don't feel the need to get yourself up to snuff. In either case there's not much a rational person can do other than recognize that it certainly does take all kinds to make a world.

This from the supreme court circa 1895 bro:

The principle that there is a presumption of innocence in favor of the accused is the undoubted law, axiomatic and elementary, and its enforcement lies at the foundation of the administration of our criminal law. … Concluding, then, that the presumption of innocence is evidence in favor of the accused, introduced by the law in his behalf, let us consider what is 'reasonable doubt.' It is, of necessity, the condition of mind produced by the proof resulting from the evidence in the cause. It is the result of the proof, not the proof itself, whereas the presumption of innocence is one of the instruments of proof, going to bring about the proof from which reasonable doubt arises; thus one is a cause, the other an effect. To say that the one is the equivalent of the other is therefore to say that legal evidence can be excluded from the jury, and that such exclusion may be cured by instructing them correctly in regard to the method by which they are required to reach their conclusion upon the proof actually before them; in other words, that the exclusion of an important element of proof can be justified by correctly instructing as to the proof admitted. The evolution of the principle of the presumption of innocence, and its resultant, the doctrine of reasonable doubt, make more apparent the correctness of these views, and indicate the necessity of enforcing the one in order that the other may continue to exist.

So you and falconhater keep on keeping on, and I suppose you can continue to wonder why people like me just can't figure out why people like you just don't get it. The information is available now more than ever, so there is no excuse not to know.

Dude, that is my exact point. Try reading what other people say with your mind and eyes open instead of guessing at what people don't understand and trying to come up with a clever response. Hater's most recent comment did not mention the legal system at all. You brought it up in response and mentioned how off base he was. Now you come back and say they have nothing to do with each other. I agree...too bad you can't see that! That's why i asked why the heck you brought it up. It has nothing to do with his comment! Quit trying to make others look dumb by shaking your head at what you think they don't undersrtand and stay on point if you can. I ask again, why do you go back to the legal thing (and then go off on how it is seperate than the league regulating morals) when Hater's point was about the league (not the courts) going after him in the first place. You are the one all over the place with your arguments.

And as for the supreme court backing you up, well all court systems back me up, because in a trial, the verdicts are guilty or not guilty.....never is the verdict innocent. Look it up.

Because 'the legal thing' is the topic of discussion. Have you read the entire thread? The issue is that there are some (you and falconhater for sure it would appear) that are ready to drop the hammer on Ben and wish some pretty horrible things on him based on nothing more than your own assessment of the situation and the word of 2 or 3 admittedly far-past-drunk college girls who made statements to the police, some of which can't be deciphered because they were beyond wasted when the wrote it! My point, as if you didn't know, is that those kinds of things went out with witch hunts, but you boys have at it - and pray you're never falsely accused right? LOL

Ben is stupid. On that I think we all agree, but the 'hang 'em high' attitude went out with witch hunts in the 1600's. You two guys should get hip with the program.

I don't know if I should be more fascinated by the dismantling of the Steelers or potential of the potent team the Jets are putting together. After we deflated the Jets in the Dome, they went on and handled their business pretty well last year. They might be a serious threat (again) this year around.

I don't know if I should be more fascinated by the dismantling of the Steelers or potential of the potent team the Jets are putting together. After we deflated the Jets in the Dome, they went on and handled their business pretty well last year. They might be a serious threat (again) this year around.

New York Jets aspirations to buy themselves division titles and championships may not turn out so well. Just ask the New York Mets.

Seems to me that this thread is EVIDENCE of a wrong in our society and the basis for why some women avoid trials and others run to get a lawyer and handle thing is a civil suit. Ben has been in TWO situations in 18 months where he has been named as Sexually assualting a female. This builds a pattern of behavior or lack of judgement. In the present case some on this board have hidden, slightly in talk of legal jargon, attacks to the character of the victim She was drunk so she cant have been raped or assualted right. and her friends were drunk so theyu cant be telling the truth about bodygaurds preventing them from helping their friend. but we MUST AT ALL COST defend the HONOR of BEN innocent until proven guilty. Once maybe he is a target but twice... And are these "Bodygaurds" or goons securing victims. Seems that been thinks he is a lord in a Feudal system of government I.E. 1600's and should gwet 1600's justice.

After reading this I can't see why charges of some kind were not filed there is enough there in the eyse of multiple witnesses to charge. I understand that eye witness testimony is suspect but this woman didnt try to sue she went to the cops the night it happened WHy. Now when she does sue she will be labeled as a gold digger looking to get paid. Truth is the system failed her. ANd I still dont understand how the Video got Erased cops with ben Cops in Georgia... cover up???

Seems to me that this thread is EVIDENCE of a wrong in our society and the basis for why some women avoid trials and others run to get a lawyer and handle thing is a civil suit. Ben has been in TWO situations in 18 months where he has been named as Sexually assualting a female. This builds a pattern of behavior or lack of judgement. In the present case some on this board have hidden, slightly in talk of legal jargon, attacks to the character of the victim She was drunk so she cant have been raped or assualted right. and her friends were drunk so theyu cant be telling the truth about bodygaurds preventing them from helping their friend. but we MUST AT ALL COST defend the HONOR of BEN innocent until proven guilty. Once maybe he is a target but twice... And are these "Bodygaurds" or goons securing victims. Seems that been thinks he is a lord in a Feudal system of government I.E. 1600's and should gwet 1600's justice.

Dude just give it up...what comes around goes around..If Ben is guilty he will answer for it ..and Karma is a *****...

Dude just give it up...what comes around goes around..If Ben is guilty he will answer for it ..and Karma is a *****...

...and that's about the best way to approach it - in fact, minus any usable evidence that's really all that can be done. If Ben has a problem it will surface and eventually he will pay. As it stands now he is "Innocent".

Seems to me that this thread is EVIDENCE of a wrong in our society and the basis for why some women avoid trials and others run to get a lawyer and handle thing is a civil suit. Ben has been in TWO situations in 18 months where he has been named as Sexually assualting a female. This builds a pattern of behavior or lack of judgement. In the present case some on this board have hidden, slightly in talk of legal jargon, attacks to the character of the victim She was drunk so she cant have been raped or assualted right. and her friends were drunk so theyu cant be telling the truth about bodygaurds preventing them from helping their friend. but we MUST AT ALL COST defend the HONOR of BEN innocent until proven guilty. Once maybe he is a target but twice... And are these "Bodygaurds" or goons securing victims. Seems that been thinks he is a lord in a Feudal system of government I.E. 1600's and should gwet 1600's justice.

After reading this I can't see why charges of some kind were not filed there is enough there in the eyse of multiple witnesses to charge. I understand that eye witness testimony is suspect but this woman didnt try to sue she went to the cops the night it happened WHy. Now when she does sue she will be labeled as a gold digger looking to get paid. Truth is the system failed her. ANd I still dont understand how the Video got Erased cops with ben Cops in Georgia... cover up???

Quickest way out of a hole is to stop digging, and you my friend should put the shovel down. NOBODY here is defending Ben. Not me. Not Canton. Nobody. Not in the way you'd like to thing. You're wasting your time with all the rhetoric. Those of us that differ with you in opinion differ with you because you are guilty of forgetting a fundamental part of our justice system. And you are absolutely guilty, and this thread is surely evidence of that.

Is it possible these women made it up? Yes. It is possible they got drunk and woke up the next morning pretty upset with their behavior? Yes. Is it possible Ben was a target? Yes. Is it possible that women have falsely accused men of similar crimes? Yes (see the most recent allegations against Warren Sapp and Michael Irvin). All these things are possible. Unless you've figured out the Vulcan mind meld there's no way in hell you can know definitively one way or the other. So you can rail on and on, but you should really just stop digging.

Is it possible Ben is a predator? Yes. It is possible he slipped that girl a few extra drinks and took advantage of her? Yes. Is it possible his body guards helped to facilitate the situation? Yes. Is there any way for you to know this as fact, considering you don't even have all the evidence the DA has - the same DA that says there's not enough to charge? Not one iota of a chance in hell is that possible, saving the Vulcan mind meld method.

The point here is that you want to circumvent the system and convict the man based on solely on your own perception of the events - the same events nobody including you can know completely. That's not going to happen in this country. You may very well be forced to get over it.

The reason you can't see why no charges have been filed is because you can't see past your own bias, which is key. This particular situation seems to hit you pretty close to home, and I'm confess I wonder why...